The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

[Tha Black Phenom]

And don't even get me started on the idea that Punk getting a comically tainted win over Cena at SummerSlam before being cashed in on by ADR with the help of Nash texting himself, and then Punk and Cena going off in different directions was somehow a proper end to that feud.

 

I didn't feel the ending was fine either which has more to do with their lack of continuity nod, which is often apparent. And them not hyping the fact that Punk did __. The rest though is pretty subjective and that's where we'll agree to disagree.. I just don't think there was a "golden" opportunity to do anything more outside of what they did.

[Fantabulous]

I take massive exception to this. In fact, I think it's one of the major things wrong with the WWE right now: chasing short-term payoff (a SummerSlam main event) at the expense of a properly executed long-term story. Because the WWE did that, they essentially killed the Summer of Punk. And for what? Tens of thousands of buys for SummerSlam? Was that worth it? Of course not. SummerSlam pretty much completely and immediately killed the mainstream interest Punk had managed to generate in the prior two months.

 

And don't even get me started on the idea that Punk getting a comically tainted win over Cena at SummerSlam before being cashed in on by ADR with the help of Nash texting himself, and then Punk and Cena going off in different directions was somehow a proper end to that feud.

Presumably, some people are much happier with short-term storylines that don't require a lot of effort to enjoy and don't tax the little grey cells.

[djthefunkchris]

I didn't feel the ending was fine either which has more to do with their lack of continuity nod, which is often apparent. And them not hyping the fact that Punk did __. The rest though is pretty subjective and that's where we'll agree to disagree.. I just don't think there was a "golden" opportunity to do anything more outside of what they did.

I don't either, but for different reason's I think. See, with people like Cena, Kane, even Mark Henry, these guys are company guys and the company knows it. With Punk, I don't think they are THAT comfortable with him. So build him up, sure, but not so far as to make him the number one, and this is where we might dissagree at.

 

I believe Punk had a chance to be above Cena. I don't believe they realised it at first, so they did what they could to push it (outside of the obvious setbacks unrelated to the story, but effecting it none the less) and then realised what the potential was with it and went a different route then what I think was intended at first... to an extent. I can't help feeling that they (creative) seen the potential to push Punk right over top of Cena in public popularity, and withdrew a bit from it, letting Punk kind of do his own thing (keeping him happy), which they knew would take some steam off him without him going downhill too far.

 

I really believe it was a bussiness decision, possibly out of fear that Punk would cash in on his popularity elsewhere if things didn't go the way he wanted them to go... not that they believed he would, but that they were not confident enough that he wouldn't. This completely outside of the storyline (which obviously was meant to make people think he would), just bussiness to make certain that the top cow would be Cena for sure.

 

So I agree with both ends to an extent. I do think they could have done better, however I believe they did what they felt they had to do (which of course is what people hate about them). I think it's kind of smart, me not knowing anything outside of rumor's about Punk, and having watched Cena be "The Man" for a few years now. Bassically, Cena's definately worth the investment, where Punk hasn't proved to be worth as much to them yet.

 

I do feel that if Punk does stay "Model" Superstar and deals with WWE responsibilities as professionally as Cena has (or even just close), then eventually they will go where they could have gone already. I think it's just a matter of time, and what Punk himself does in the next couple of years (perhaps only one). Right now, I just think they were playing it safe. I can understand that though. That's where most I think will dissagree though. They want WWE to take chances, and not worry about what consequences it might have... but to me I look at the history here, and see that WWE has been burnt alot more then anyone ever talks about, and can see why they would "Play it safe".

 

I truly believe that anytime they wanted to, they could put Punk in Cena's place... It's just a matter of "chance" and possibly loyalty to Cena, as he's been to them.

 

EDIT: Added quote.

[bigtplaystew]

Yea remember that whole thing when Nexus helped Kane beat Undertaker? What happened to that? Lol. They teased it for awhile then... nothing...

 

Maybe they were leading to a Barrett/Taker mania.

[TakerNGN74]

Yea remember that whole thing when Nexus helped Kane beat Undertaker? What happened to that? Lol. They teased it for awhile then... nothing...

 

Maybe they were leading to a Barrett/Taker mania.

 

I have heard that the origional plan for WM27 was to have Barrett vs. Taker at Mania which I think thats why the Nexus helped Kane beat Taker. If they wanted to they could have easily had the Undertaker come back and blame Barrett for causing him to loose his match with Kane. However at the end of the day they didn't do it because I think they weren't about to have a newer worker who has never wrestled at a WrestleMania go into his first match at the event with the Undertaker, that might have been way too much preasure for him. It might have been a huge letdown to fans as well because Taker's match has become one of the most important matches at Mania in the recent years its almost as important if not more important than the two title matches. I think that ultimately thats the reason why they decided to not go through with Barrett vs. Taker at Mania 27 and instead go with Taker vs. Triple H at Mania. Lets face it Taker vs. Triple H at Mania was awesome and I don't think Barrett vs. Taker would be a match that we would talk about for monthes/years if it had happened.

 

They could do it this year but I think if they did it would be a let down if people were to compare it to his match at WM 27 with Triple H. I think if Taker can do another match at Mania (I know his health has come into question) the only person he could face would be Triple H for the third time. They could do Kane for a third time but I would rather see Taker/HHH 3 than Taker/Kane 3.

[ampulator]

I believe Punk had a chance to be above Cena. I don't believe they realised it at first, so they did what they could to push it (outside of the obvious setbacks unrelated to the story, but effecting it none the less) and then realised what the potential was with it and went a different route then what I think was intended at first... to an extent. I can't help feeling that they (creative) seen the potential to push Punk right over top of Cena in public popularity, and withdrew a bit from it, letting Punk kind of do his own thing (keeping him happy), which they knew would take some steam off him without him going downhill too far.

 

I really believe it was a bussiness decision, possibly out of fear that Punk would cash in on his popularity elsewhere if things didn't go the way he wanted them to go... not that they believed he would, but that they were not confident enough that he wouldn't. This completely outside of the storyline (which obviously was meant to make people think he would), just bussiness to make certain that the top cow would be Cena for sure.

One word: Merchandise.

 

Cena currently sells Merchandise like no other. This cannot be disputed. What WWE is afraid of (correctly, but too overzealousy) that any diminishment of Cena's role would lead to the diminishing profits from the amount of Merchandise Cena sells.

 

But WWE has caught to the fact that, something has to give, considering WWE's declining attendance and buyrates. To be fair, although there's a lot of internal factors that the WWE correct to raise attendance and buyrates, there's a lot of factors not related to what WWE's doing that's causing a decline in them as well. And there's not much they can do about those external factors.

 

WWE has to strike a balance in terms of raising attendance and buyrates without hurting their merchandise sales. It's a difficult task. But they should and must do it.

[OldStingberg]

I have heard that the origional plan for WM27 was to have Barrett vs. Taker at Mania which I think thats why the Nexus helped Kane beat Taker. If they wanted to they could have easily had the Undertaker come back and blame Barrett for causing him to loose his match with Kane. However at the end of the day they didn't do it because I think they weren't about to have a newer worker who has never wrestled at a WrestleMania go into his first match at the event with the Undertaker, that might have been way too much preasure for him. It might have been a huge letdown to fans as well because Taker's match has become one of the most important matches at Mania in the recent years its almost as important if not more important than the two title matches. I think that ultimately thats the reason why they decided to not go through with Barrett vs. Taker at Mania 27 and instead go with Taker vs. Triple H at Mania. Lets face it Taker vs. Triple H at Mania was awesome and I don't think Barrett vs. Taker would be a match that we would talk about for monthes/years if it had happened.

 

They could do it this year but I think if they did it would be a let down if people were to compare it to his match at WM 27 with Triple H. I think if Taker can do another match at Mania (I know his health has come into question) the only person he could face would be Triple H for the third time. They could do Kane for a third time but I would rather see Taker/HHH 3 than Taker/Kane 3.

 

We'd certainly talk about a Taker/Barrett match at WM for years to come if Barrett won.

 

I really, really hope the WWE uses Taker's WM streak to put over a younger guy.

[lazorbeak]

One word: Merchandise.

 

Cena currently sells Merchandise like no other. This cannot be disputed. What WWE is afraid of (correctly, but too overzealousy) that any diminishment of Cena's role would lead to the diminishing profits from the amount of Merchandise Cena sells.

 

Actually it can and has been disputed. Punk started outselling Cena's merchandise in October.

[ampulator]

Actually it can and has been disputed. Punk started outselling Cena's merchandise in October.

Well, what to clarify, Cena's ibe if the most CONSISTENT merchandise seller over these recent years. His overall totals probably dwarf's Punk's, though if you correct, then it's possible to surpass it. However, as a Punk-fan, that makes me happy, and proves me to that the WWE only "thinks" they need to be behind Cena. They are unwilling to take any risks.

 

But you have to understand-this is coming from a guy that rather not see Cena anymore. I'm bored of him. Tired. But you have to give due where it's due.

[bigtplaystew]

From what I understand, Punk has the best selling t-shirt in the WWE right now. Thats according to him. I believe Cena is still the merch king if you count all the other crap. The hats, the wristbands, toys, etc. I don't know or care enough to argue anyone one way or the other.

 

I'm thinking for 'Taker at WM Kane is the logical choice. They bring him back and build him up with a bunch of squashes and it'll make sense.

 

I dont want to see a third Triple H match. I don't think many others do either.

 

Kane can still work and the two could theoretically blow the doors off the place if they're in good enough shape.

 

I'm still wondering who else is left? I'd get pumped over Cena/Taker but that is obviously not happening this year. Jericho maybe? They could have a great match. Punk could have an incredible match with him at 'mania but I'm hoping Punk's in the title picture at wrestlemania. With Rock/Cena, WWE Title holder vs Challenger, World Title holder vs challenger, and Undertaker vs. ???...

 

We're looking at a quadruple main event haha. That could be insane.

[ampulator]

This is an extremely remote possibility, but I heard that Austin had always been interested in working with Punk. I heard Austin thinks he has one more match left in him.

[bigtplaystew]

This is an extremely remote possibility, but I heard that Austin had always been interested in working with Punk. I heard Austin thinks he has one more match left in him.

 

Yea that's been tossed around. I just dont see it happening THIS year with The Rock's involvement but we'll see.

[TakerNGN74]

We'd certainly talk about a Taker/Barrett match at WM for years to come if Barrett won.

 

I really, really hope the WWE uses Taker's WM streak to put over a younger guy.

 

I really hope that they dont decide to end the streak at all, if they did I wouldn't be happy and I am sure that I wouldn't be the only one.

[Fantabulous]

Undertaker/Barrett was the plan for Wrestlemania until just after the Rumble, and then Vince got the crazy idea he could get Brock Lesnar to work against Undertaker; the Lesnar/Undertaker staredown just after Lesnar lost the UFC Heavyweight title was meant to be the first step to building that, although the angle was conceived with the idea Lesnar would win that fight. Anyway, Vince eventually realized the reality of the situation, that he wasn't getting Lesnar, so they went with Undertaker/Triple H instead.

[Basmat01]

Really how many matches does Undertaker have left in him? The guy needs a year off after a match.

 

I really wouldnt mind Take facing Jericho at WM. The pair have only met once in singles and they wasted that one time on Smackdown with no build up.

[OldStingberg]

I really hope that they dont decide to end the streak at all, if they did I wouldn't be happy and I am sure that I wouldn't be the only one.

 

I just think it'd be such a wasted opportunity to build a new, young superstar. And considering Taker owes a lot of his career to being put over by guys like Dusty Rhodes, Jimmy Snuka, The Ultimate Warrior, and Hulk Hogan, it'd be good for him to pay it forward in a big way. And I think the WWE can do it in a way that still honors Taker and what he's done. Maybe have Dolph put Taker to sleep with the sleeper Dolph uses so the announcers can really sell how Taker was unwilling to give up. Then Dolph could leave the ring, Taker could eventually get back to his feet and soak in the thunderous ovation, and maybe have some of the superstars in the back come out and applaud him.

 

Something like that, still giving Taker his due, but also putting over a new superstar ready to main event.

[OldStingberg]

Yea that's been tossed around. I just dont see it happening THIS year with The Rock's involvement but we'll see.

 

Plus, I don't think Punk/Austin makes any sense with Punk as a face. It's a great idea with Punk doing his straight edge heel stuff, but as a face their fan bases are just too similar to really make it work well.

[Derek B]

I don't wander into this thread very often, but I spy some talk of Undertaker's Wrestlemania streak and I feel the need to contribute an opinion.

 

My opinion... he should lose it when he chooses to retire and it should be his final match. Whether that's this year or next or ten years from now with him only ever having one match per year... him losing the streak is the best for the WWE and best for business. From a money point of view, once Undertaker retires they aren't going to make any money off him. His streak legacy is never going to be challenged by anyone so it's not a milestone that is going to be beaten and therefore can't be used to make money for anyone else in future either. Respect for Undertaker is all well and good, but again... there's no money to be made in that. The only way to make money off it, which is what the WWE should do, is to eventually end the streak and make money off the person who does that. The bragging rights and the kudos attached to beating the Undertaker would be a huge boost for someone else and could help elevate someone into a money making position, which is exactly what the WWE should want to do.

 

The specifics of that however are much harder. I don't know who would be good to lose it to and I don't know who the WWE would feel comfortable in elevating to what would have to be main event heel status. If you give it to someone who doesn't have long left in their career then it would be a waste (Mark Henry, Kane, Big Show). If you give the win to someone who is already main eventing (Orton, Cena, Miz, Punk) then you don't really gain anything because they're already big names and the rub won't help much. Which leaves guys who aren't in solid spots already and who may not be good enough to run with a win like that. It's a tough spot and after the likes of Brock Lesnar leaving them behind then it's kinda hard to see who the WWE might take the risk on. Dolph Ziggler seems to be a top candidate but as good as he may be, I don't know if he's quite good enough. But if it comes down to potentially making money vs not making money, I know what I'd go with. I'm just not sure it's going to be at the next Wrestlemania.

 

Incidentally, I really hope we don't get another Undertaker vs Kane wrestlemania match... the vignettes airing about the same time makes me worried that we might be gearing up for that and I've become so jaded with the Kane character. If Kane retired today, I'd be happy. Especially if he got some easy backstage job too, cos I like the guy, just not the character.

 

Though I do like the idea of Undertaker challenging John Cena to a match for Wrestlemania 29... with the right build I think that match could tear down the house. Cena winning that match, receiving the Undertaker's torch of being the force against the darkness and then some spectactular Undertaker theatrics to see him disappear forever... hell, I'd dig that. The internet probably hates me know.

[JTandSilentBob]

Am I the only person that wouldn't mind Undertaker vs Rey Mysterio at Wrestlemania?

[Rone Rivendale]

Ryder over Undertaker at WM28. Woo woo woo, you know it!

 

*runs*

[Derek B]

Am I the only person that wouldn't mind Undertaker vs Rey Mysterio at Wrestlemania?

 

I hope so.

 

I used to love Rey when he was in the cruiserweight division, but his step up to the heavyweight ranks made me sad. I can buy him against guys like Punk or Eddie or Edge or Angle... but even trying to consider him against Big Show or Taker or Kane or Khali or Henry... it breaks my ability to suspend disbelief. A couple of years ago I was looking forward to seeing a feud between Rey and Low Kiv(or Kaval if you prefer ) because it would have seen both men fighting at their very best... but that didn't happen. And while Rey is entertaining, his matches with big men are so forced and contrived wheneer Rey gets in some offense that I can't watch them. Rey vs Undertaker at Wrestlemania just wouldn't be right for me and no matter how good they might be together, I'd be telling myself it's horrible.

 

Of course, I'd be interested in hearing why you'd think it was awesome. Might be you have an idea I haven't thought of and that's always good to hear. I'll just have to remember to check the thread again cos I don't spend much time in here.

[Astil]

I don't wander into this thread very often, but I spy some talk of Undertaker's Wrestlemania streak and I feel the need to contribute an opinion.

 

My opinion... he should lose it when he chooses to retire and it should be his final match. Whether that's this year or next or ten years from now with him only ever having one match per year... him losing the streak is the best for the WWE and best for business. From a money point of view, once Undertaker retires they aren't going to make any money off him. His streak legacy is never going to be challenged by anyone so it's not a milestone that is going to be beaten and therefore can't be used to make money for anyone else in future either. Respect for Undertaker is all well and good, but again... there's no money to be made in that. The only way to make money off it, which is what the WWE should do, is to eventually end the streak and make money off the person who does that. The bragging rights and the kudos attached to beating the Undertaker would be a huge boost for someone else and could help elevate someone into a money making position, which is exactly what the WWE should want to do.

 

The specifics of that however are much harder. I don't know who would be good to lose it to and I don't know who the WWE would feel comfortable in elevating to what would have to be main event heel status. If you give it to someone who doesn't have long left in their career then it would be a waste (Mark Henry, Kane, Big Show). If you give the win to someone who is already main eventing (Orton, Cena, Miz, Punk) then you don't really gain anything because they're already big names and the rub won't help much. Which leaves guys who aren't in solid spots already and who may not be good enough to run with a win like that. It's a tough spot and after the likes of Brock Lesnar leaving them behind then it's kinda hard to see who the WWE might take the risk on. Dolph Ziggler seems to be a top candidate but as good as he may be, I don't know if he's quite good enough. But if it comes down to potentially making money vs not making money, I know what I'd go with. I'm just not sure it's going to be at the next Wrestlemania.

 

Incidentally, I really hope we don't get another Undertaker vs Kane wrestlemania match... the vignettes airing about the same time makes me worried that we might be gearing up for that and I've become so jaded with the Kane character. If Kane retired today, I'd be happy. Especially if he got some easy backstage job too, cos I like the guy, just not the character.

 

Though I do like the idea of Undertaker challenging John Cena to a match for Wrestlemania 29... with the right build I think that match could tear down the house. Cena winning that match, receiving the Undertaker's torch of being the force against the darkness and then some spectactular Undertaker theatrics to see him disappear forever... hell, I'd dig that. The internet probably hates me know.

 

I'd take that, just replace Cena with Sheamus. Cena is firmly entrenched in the ME spot and could even maybe lose ground in a match like that. Sheamus, on the other hand could become huge witht he right push, and Sheamus as the Celtic Warrior force against evil gimmick. I'd love it.

[Fantabulous]

I don't think ending the streak would elevate a guy to main event status as much as generate an incredible backlash against him, and not in a good way before people get confused and think that means positive heat. The streak is so over that I think fans would outright reject someone breaking it. It makes sense in theory but I think if they actually do it, and have someone end the streak, it'll backfire in a big way.

[djthefunkchris]

I don't think ending the streak would elevate a guy to main event status as much as generate an incredible backlash against him, and not in a good way before people get confused and think that means positive heat. The streak is so over that I think fans would outright reject someone breaking it. It makes sense in theory but I think if they actually do it, and have someone end the streak, it'll backfire in a big way.

 

I've always thought the same thing... that it would hurt whomever wins more then help them.

 

I've come to believe that if they do it right though, with the RIGHT person (Sheamus maybe, but I feel someone like Ziggler would just get slaughtered from it, be out of the company within' months), that it could work. It has to be someone that not only can speak, but "feels" powerful. The build-up to the match, and the match itself would have to sell Taker's age vs. Youth. Taker would have to acknowledge the winner as well, a bow to say "Great Match" or something.

 

IF someone just has the normal "Hey Taker, look at that Wrestlemania sign over there... Me and you!" Taker: /finger slits throat, Announcers "Looks like it's on for Wrestlemania!"... That would be a bad start for it. Here is what I would like to see (Insert whomever you're favorite is).

 

I pick Punk: Punk has routine match's, but is interrupted afterwards by Undertaker games (Lights off, back on and Punk's been slammed). This goes on, and Punk finally gets one on Taker by coming to Smackdown. This goes back and forth till Punk is so fed up that he's begging Taker to just state what it is he wants... Taker: "You claim to be the best Wrestler. You claim to be the best in the world. Proove it to me!" Taker points at Wrestlemania sign and /slits throat. Punk looks at Taker confused a second, see's the sign, and starts shaking his head /no way. But Taker keeps taunting him, playing mind games during match's, goes on for month's and Punk finally has had it, doesn't care if he dies at Wrestlemania, just wants the games to stop, so he agree's to meet Taker at Wrestlemania.

 

Bassically, it has to be Taker actively going after the "New" guy, till new guy is fed up. The crowd has to be not only understanding why the new guy finally agrees, but outright wants him to agree.

 

This I think might work.

[sebsy]

I've always thought with Taker's streak that it shouldn't end, although I can totally see where Derek B is coming from. I'd be quite happy for it to never end, but if it was to end and it was done right, I'd be happy too.

 

If I had to choose one current roster member who I could think oft he best reasons to have end it, it would be CM Punk. I'd love Taker vs Punk this year either way. Punk, despite his great push to the top this year after 'that' promo, I feel could still end up being misused by WWE. Cena and Orton don't need it as they're deeply entrenched in Main Event status already, Kane, Big Show, Triple H, Henry have been around too long and don't have a long time left, Ziggler just wouldn't be believable enough to me, as good as he is and as much as he has grown on me, I'm not sure I could dig him beating Taker when HHH has failed twice, Kane has failed twice, Orton has failed, HBK has failed twice.

 

Punk could use it to unequivocally set in stone his main event position for the rest of his career, much like Cena and Orton.

 

But I think at the end of the day I'd rather Taker never loses it.

 

This year I'd personally rather see a match selection of

 

Cena vs Rock

Taker vs Orton

Punk vs Jericho

 

Three huge matches right there. Punk vs Jericho for the title, even face vs face, would be huge. Then you've still got a WHC match with whoever. Henry vs Sheamus? Bryan involved?